Jump to content


Photo

is this the way to go???


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 27 October 2006 - 09:51 PM

I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wont
be able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs,
or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home
with a flicker-free projector.

Is this the way to go?

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem


Any other suggestions would be great!

thanks
  • 0

#2 Allen Achterberg

Allen Achterberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Santa Maria CA

Posted 27 October 2006 - 11:52 PM

I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wont
be able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs,
or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home
with a flicker-free projector.

Is this the way to go?

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem
Any other suggestions would be great!

thanks



I wouldn't say its the way to go. But if you must do it, do it.

All the Best,
Allen Achterberg
  • 0

#3 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 28 October 2006 - 06:49 AM

The description on Ebay says...

"Professionally re-manufactured to deliver a Broadcast quality film to video transfer that performs as well as the most expensive telecine transfer equipment around " $399

erm - $1m Spirit vs $399 projector shoved into a camcorder. I think the seller might be slightly stretching the point! I'm sure it works though.
  • 0

#4 Rachel Oliver

Rachel Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • London, England

Posted 28 October 2006 - 07:07 AM

I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wont
be able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs,
or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home
with a flicker-free projector.

Is this the way to go?

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem
Any other suggestions would be great!

thanks


Hi;

Have you looked at www.moviestuff.tv
Yes more expensive but widely regarded as the best personal film transfer units around.

Olly
  • 0

#5 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 October 2006 - 10:41 AM

Any other suggestions would be great!

Shoot video.
  • 0

#6 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 28 October 2006 - 12:59 PM

I think moviestuff is the way to go, real cheap and still plenty usable
in postwork to make it look acceptable. thanks Rachel.

shooting video is out of the question for these projects, video sucks!
well, I take that back....video is cool for the right contexts, and this
isnt one, even the HVX200 STILL looks like video, maybe the new
RED will cause my eyes to open a little wider towards the move of
video.
  • 0

#7 Aleksandar Bracinac

Aleksandar Bracinac
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • Belgrade, Serbia

Posted 28 October 2006 - 01:08 PM

Find some HDV with mini35 and some 35mm lenses and shoot. You will make your short to look like film. Thing like moviestuff "telecine" will not give your what you looking for.
  • 0

#8 Rachel Oliver

Rachel Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • London, England

Posted 28 October 2006 - 03:26 PM

Find some HDV with mini35 and some 35mm lenses and shoot. You will make your short to look like film. Thing like moviestuff "telecine" will not give your what you looking for.


Hi;

How do you know what he's looking for? IF Seth is looking for a true film aesthetic (which is what he seems to be after) then whether he transfers it via low end or high end technology it will still retain it's film look.
In regards to Low end telecine I've seen some killer films transfered via customized projector/scanner method and some seriously terrible ones transfered via Spirit. Seth if you could get use of a really decent video camera with 700+ lines of resolve and align it perfectly and are really on it with your grading you will achieve a very decent frame by frame scan of your film with the workprinter, maybe not close to the top end but I doubt it would be the making or breaking of your film.
Good luck.

Olly

Edited by Rachel Oliver, 28 October 2006 - 03:27 PM.

  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 October 2006 - 04:04 PM

some seriously terrible ones transfered via Spirit.


Hi,

Have you any examples you could share.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 28 October 2006 - 04:56 PM

IF Seth is looking for a true film aesthetic (which is what he seems to be after) then whether he transfers it via low end or high end technology it will still retain it's film look.


I'm afraid I have to disagree. The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure. But it?s the latitude that?s hard to fake with a video shoot. The thing is though, if you use the transfer method originally suggested, the film itself is being shot with a domestic video camera so the available latitude in the final digital copy will only be as much as that domestic video camera can deliver. In other words, no more than if it shot the scene originally.

The scanners used in Spirits, North Lights etc are a great deal more advanced than the sort of thing you find in a video camera - even the high end ones.

I would suggest that if you really want to make the most of a film shoot, then that entails proper telecine and grading. If you want to use a domestic or semi pro video camera at any point in the chain, then the film look will be very compromised, probably to the point that it would have been more efficient and controllable to shoot on that video camera in the first place and grade later to get the colour characteristics of your chosen film stock within the limitations of your video camera.

Once possible merit to this workflow though is the experience of shooting film. But I would still suggest that understanding the ability of telecine and grading is integral to the film shoot experience.
  • 0

#11 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 28 October 2006 - 05:23 PM

The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure.

Don't forget the colors. Also it's got an altogether different look for reasons I don't understand, things I hear referred to as "toe" and "heel" in regard to the blacks, etc. Anyway I've seen footage transfered this way and it is undeniably film! The footage will definitely retain its film-look, sure you lose some lattitude, but that alone doesn't make it look like video. A guy who posted here who shoots super-8 and made "rage of silence" and "stuntman" does his transfers this way (or at least did his transfers this way) and I think it makes sense, especially if you're shooting a lot of footage.
  • 0

#12 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 28 October 2006 - 07:11 PM

Don't forget the colors. Also it's got an altogether different look for reasons I don't understand, things I hear referred to as "toe" and "heel" in regard to the blacks, etc.


Yes it does - depending on film stock and how its graded. My point is that you are still limited to what the video camera can shoot, irrelevant as to whether it is shooting the original scene or a projected film. Telecine is all about crafting what is on the film into the colour space that video allows. The most limiting factor in the video process is the image sensor in a video camera, so shooting film but transferring to video in this manner will insert so many limits into the process that it will undo almost all of the benefits of capturing with film.

Of course thats assuming that the goal is top-quality transfers that have the flexibility to extend the control of the DP into post production. If the look you're after is an amateur family home film from the 70's, then this is probably a good, if somewhat uncontrollable way to get it. But to suggest (as has been in other posts) that the results will be close to a professional telecine transfer with a skilled colourist is just likely to lead to expensive disappointment, and that?s what I hope these posts will avoid.
  • 0

#13 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 October 2006 - 10:31 PM

"The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure."

With regards to frame rate, the Workprinters and Snipers transfer at single frame. So with computer software applying speed changes, the 'look' of the original frame rate of the footage (16, 18 or 24 fps) can be more or less maintained. Sure, some frames will be doubled or tripled but this is what happens with a Rank transfer also. Additionally, transferring at single frame means no flicker and no blending of frames which can plague many low end transfers.

However, I do admit that exposure latitude will be a problem.

As for artefacts like grain, sure there will still be plenty of that in the transfer!

"My point is that you are still limited to what the video camera can shoot, irrelevant as to whether it is shooting the original scene or a projected film."

With a Workprinter or Sniper, you're not shooting a projected film!

Edited by Patrick Cooper, 28 October 2006 - 10:34 PM.

  • 0

#14 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 28 October 2006 - 10:56 PM

Ok, ya'll......I think D.Sweetman hit it right on the head!
We can babble about latitude and transfer quality all friggin
day....but my point...and what seems to be D.Sweetman's
point.....is this:

regardless of what kind of video camera you use for this
type of transfer method....FILM STILL SEEMS TO LOOK
LIKE FILM! Whether its 700+ or 200 lines quality, ... THE
REAL DEAL IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME than some great
image from any video response. I hate the MOVEMENT
that video delivers. It works for only certain contexts, but
not for movies, and not for most music videos, unless they
call for that sort of look.

If a guy were to surf for short films, music videos, whatever...
any consumer out there (not knowing anything about
what we're talking about) would say that a bad transferred
16mm piece would look more professional and more
entertaining than anything that's video. They cant explain
WHY, because they dont have a clue....its because FILM
is magical, its pleasing to the eye, its retains a character
like the movies, and video to most people just looks like
the news or something.

Mr.Bracinac, I've seen a couple pieces displayed online
using an HDV with a 35mm addon, and I'm sorry man, but
it doesnt do it for me, ....the colors are definitely impressive,
the image is tight...but the movement is still UNDENIABLY
video. Lights still seem a bit contrasty too, but maybe it was
just the DOP on the ones that I saw. If you have any for
display for me, by all means, I'm open to reexamination! :o)

Thanks again for all your long-winded 2cents on the topic,
its always an education. I may not be up on my particulars in
transfer methods, but I do know what I see and what I want.
  • 0

#15 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 October 2006 - 11:43 PM

One of the best 16mm transfers I've seen lately was clean workprint projected and shot off textureless paper in HDCam with an HDW-750...

of course that's step up or two from a miniDV camera...

"Poor person's Vialta" more like.....

-Sam Wells
  • 0

#16 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 29 October 2006 - 12:06 AM

One of the best 16mm transfers I've seen lately was clean workprint projected and shot off textureless paper in HDCam with an HDW-750...

of course that's step up or two from a miniDV camera...

"Poor person's Vialta" more like.....

-Sam Wells






So where's the link???
  • 0

#17 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:36 PM

Thanks again for all your long-winded 2cents on the topic,


Seth,

People here are just trying to help you get the most out of your shooting - there is no need to be rude or use disrespectful terms to fellow posters. Perhaps you should get that $399 gadget from Ebay and do some transfers. Then when anyone who watches your films think they look like 70's home movies, you can come back here and find out why. Or maybe you will have found a $399 gadget that matches multi million dollar transfer systems (like the ebay description claims) and the rest of the industry is wrong and you are right.

I don't think so though.
  • 0

#18 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 30 October 2006 - 10:08 PM

mr.cox,

no rude remarks intended. my apologies!

I totally understand your point, I just felt

like you no one was getting the point of

really what I was looking for; which was

the "film" look being more important for

this particular contexts over superior

resolution.

cheers
  • 0

#19 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:50 AM

So where's the link???


I'll post it when I have one.

-Sam
  • 0

#20 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:53 AM

any consumer out there (not knowing anything about
what we're talking about) would say that a bad transferred
16mm piece would look more professional and more
entertaining than anything that's video.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you think shooting on film somehow negates the effects of third-rate post production, then perhaps you've had experience with neither. There's a world of difference between amateurish film production and professional film production. If you really want to experience the look of film in all its glory, then you need to give it a meticulous level of care from the shooting stage all the way through post production. If you're not prepared to work in film without compromise, then you would be better off shooting video.
  • 0


Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Tai Audio